Evidence of meeting #46 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't believe we're debating Bill C-38 here today.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
He has two minutes left on his time and then we're going to move on, so it's in order.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chairperson, I understand the motion is in order, correct?
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chairperson, as I was saying, I do believe that the Department of Immigration has created an injustice. There are many individuals who were in a stream in which the government has made a determination just to hit the delete button. I believe that is just a cruel policy. That is not the way in which a government should be bringing in a policy in order to try to deal with a backlog issue. I know the minister loves the opportunity to say that he inherited a backlog. He never takes credit for his contributions to the backlog, which are very significant, Mr. Chairperson.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm just going to question your ruling that this is in order. My colleague Mr. Menegakis had mentioned that this motion is related to Bill C-38 and that those applications continue to be processed. You said that it wasn't, but I'm actually looking right at this motion and here it is referenced right in front of me. I would just question your ruling on that, and if you declare—
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I'm actually asking for clarification, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
As far as I'm concerned, with estimates almost anything goes. In about 30 seconds we're going to have a vote.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I told you twice you're in order, so I don't know how many times you want me to do it. You're in order and you have about 30 seconds to conclude your debate.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
I do believe it's very important that the government get on the record as to what they believe or how they would respond to this particular motion before we actually have the vote on it. I think the message that we're sending is just wrong. This is not the way to deal with backlogs. I suspect we're going to be entering into all sorts of legal actions that are on the horizon as a result of our allowing the Minister of Immigration to implement this particular program, to hit the delete button and deny those individuals who have been waiting for four, five, or six years. We're just not allowing them to have that. I suspect, Mr. Chairperson, that the government—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, Mr. Lamoureux, your time has expired.
Is there further debate?
(Motion negatived)
Mr. Leung.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll bring us back to the issue at hand, talking about the estimates.
I'm particularly pleased to see a section of highlights under part two. I have recently returned from Taiwan, and the Government of Taiwan is extremely pleased about the lifting of visa requirements. I noticed in here a decrease or saving of $3.8 million.
More specifically, my question has to do with the fact that there's an increase of $24.7 million related to the grant for the Canada-Quebec accord. My memory is that there was a previous number of the same amount that happened in the supplementary estimates (C). Perhaps you can explain how this funding for Quebec is determined and how it is calculated on a per capita basis for the supplementary funding in Quebec, as compared to the rest of Canada.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Sure, I'll give a general answer, then refer to Amipal.
The Canada-Quebec immigration accord was signed a little over 20 years ago. It committed the federal government to transferring payments to the Government of Quebec to provide for settlement and integration services to newcomers. The funding was to be based on a formula that is in part a function of the rate of growth in federal government spending.
There is no ceiling on the increases that happen under the formula, but there is a floor. That is to say that if federal spending goes down, if the formula goes down, Quebec doesn't lose any funding. It just keeps going up.
This does concern me, because the formula is not actually related to the number of immigrants in Quebec or the cost of the services they deliver. This year we are up to about $280 million in settlement services to Quebec. We are now at just about $6,000 in settlement services per immigrant to Quebec, but at about $3,000 in settlement services per immigrant in the rest of the country.
We simply can't afford to maintain increases in the nine provinces outside of Quebec at the rate of Quebec's formula.
Based on our information, Quebec is actually spending significantly less on core settlement and integration services than we give them through this annual transfer. I do think there's an equity issue here.
Amipal, would you like to supplement that?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Sure.
As mentioned, the calculation of the grant to Quebec is based on a formula that includes an escalation clause, which can never decrease.
Essentially, there are two elements to the formula. One is the year-over-year increases for non-francophone immigration landings in Quebec, and the other is a year-over-year increase in the federal expenditures net of public debt charges.
What happens is that, as I mentioned, the amount can never decrease. We saw an amount in the last supplementary estimates (C), which included a $24.7 million increase to bring it up in accordance with the formula. What we're seeing now is once you increase that amount, that becomes the new floor for the funding, and what we're seeing in the main estimates now is to adjust that amount to the new base that will come into effect.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
I wanted just one clarification, and that has to do with the per capita funding for Quebec as compared to the rest of Canada. Could you address that, please?
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
As I said, I think we're up to getting about $6,000 per immigrant in Quebec. That compares to the per capital level of funding in the rest of the country, which, based on the new funding formula, is just a notch under $3,000. I think it's about $2,900 per immigrant.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I will share my remaining time with Costas Menegakis, please.